A Review of Unisa’s 2015 Strategic Plan

Presented to Council27 August 2009

Prof Narend BaijnathVice-principal: Strategy, Planning & Partnerships

Acknowledgements

The following DISA staff members provided valuable help and support in preparing the background information and analysis, draft report and this presentation:

– Suzette van Zyl: Background Information and Analysis

– Herbert Zemann: Preparation of Information– Refiloe Sefadi: Preparation of Presentation

The efforts of other Unisa staff who provided additional information is acknowledged

Background• 5 years after the formulation and adoption of

Unisa’s 2015 strategic plan, it is an opportune moment to reflect on:– Progress towards the achievement of its

objectives and targets– Strengths and areas for review and improvement– Drawing from various reflective instruments (see

below), positive and negative internal and external factors shaping progress

• To these ends, management will be undertaking a formal review of the 2015 Plan in relation to these three sets of considerations at the forthcoming planning Lekgotla during September

Purpose

• The purpose of this presentation is to present to Council an overview of the 2015 review, comprising:– Unisa’s emerging planning framework– Strengths and unique features of the 2015

plan– Shortcomings and areas for review and

improvement– Progress towards the achievement of targets– An overview of internal and external factors

shaping progress

Unisa’s emerging planning framework

• Since the merger, Unisa has taken decisive steps towards its stated goal of becoming a highly planned organisation. These include:– The 2015 Plan– The annual three-year institutional operational

plan• Vertical integration: strategic and

operational dimensions• Horizontal integration: across functional

areas and silos– The strategic resource allocation model– The emerging integrated strategic planning

framework

Various reflective processes and instruments:

Over the past few years, Unisa has had the opportunity to reflect on its organizational performance by means of a variety of reflective processes and instruments. These include:

• The COL and HEQC quality assurance audits and the institutional quality assurance framework

• The organisational architecture initiative• Numerous planning and review Makgotla, including

periodic reviews of the IOP and progress towards the achievement of the 2015 targets

• The service charter and focus on service excellence• Risk management• The emerging Business Intelligence/Institutional

Research framework, including the development of organisational performance indicators

Strengths of the 2015 Plan

• Highly consultative process• Very open and candid self-reflection of

institutional challenges and opportunities• Very comprehensive and systematic in its scope,

substance and structure:– 10 overarching objectives– Strategies– Targets

• Widely acknowledged as quite unique in this way• Widely disseminated and acknowledged as the

strategic point of reference within the institution

Areas of improvement

With hindsight, it has become apparent that, despite its strengths and unique features, the Plan has several shortcomings:

• In the absence of the IOP, an inordinate focus on operational detail

• Despite its systematic structure, sometimes unclear relationships between strategies and targets, and gaps in this regard

• Clustered targets, which makes monitoring and management difficult

• No clear identification of performance indicators• In retrospect, some clearly unrealistic targets

2009 5-Year Review of the 2015 Plan

• Review progress – approved by Mancom• Review: focus and number of objectives• Review: focus and number of strategies,

particularly in relation to the IOP• Review: validity of targets• Systematically map objectives, strategies, targets

and performance measures/indicators• Overall purpose: to produce a more focused and

structured plan, with clear measurable targets which articulates appropriately with the IOP and the emerging functional plans – which together make up the Integrated Planning Framework

Review of progress

• Given the shortcomings outlined above, measuring progress towards the existing plan is challenging

• Method:– Examination and categorisation of all 84 targets in

the 2015 Plan– Identification of:

• Past original targets: reached/not reached/revised/ shifted/no longer valid

• Future original targets: on track/not on track/reached

• Revised targets: on track/not on track/reached• Realistic/unrealistic targets

Limitations

• Not all targets are quantifiable; many relate to planned outputs and milestones (e.g. approval of a plan or strategy)

• Most of the information gathered regarding the latter is self-reported• “No battle plan survives contact with the enemy”:

Inevitable shifts and unanticipated obstacles in operationalising strategies (e.g. phased roll-outs, prioritisation, dependencies, external factors)

• Performance indicators are not clearly specified and in some cases targets are no longer valid or have shifted

• Clustered targets difficult to separate and measure• In some cases, information regarding progress towards targets not

available• For all these reasons, this review must regarded as a rough, high-

level assessment of progress• The BI/IR Framework, as it is operationalised, will provide systematic

evidence of performance ito performance indicators

Past and Future Targets

Past Future Ongoing

N 56 24 4

% 0.666666666666667

0.285714285714286

0.0119047619047619

5

15

25

35

45

55

Realistic and Unrealistic Targets

Realistic Unrealistic

N 59 25

% 0.666666666666667 0.273809523809524

5152535455565

Target Types

Output/Milestone Quantitative

N 54 30

% 0.642857142857143 0.357142857142857

51525354555

Original and Revised Targets

Original Target Revised Target

N 44 40

% 0.523809523809524 0.476190476190476

2.5

12.5

22.5

32.5

42.5

Overall Performance – 84 Targets

Original & Revised Tar-get Reached

Original Tar-get Not

Reached

Original & Revised Tar-

gets On Track

Original & Revised Tar-gets Not On

Track

Targets shifted/Un-

clear

N 35 6 22 16 5

% 0.416666666666667

0.0714285714285714

0.261904761904762

0.190476190476191

0.0595238095238095

2.57.5

12.517.522.527.532.537.5

Findings and Analysis• Methodologically, assessing progress towards the

achievement of the 2015 SP targets is very challenging• Accordingly, this review must be regarded as a rough,

high-level assessment of progress, with inevitable information gaps at this point

• Of the 84 targets:– 56 (67%)of the target dates were in the past, and 24

(29%) in the future, with 4 ongoing– 59 (67%) were regarded as realistic and 25 (27%) were

regarded as unrealistic– 54 (64%) related to outputs and milestones, while 30

were quantitative in nature– 44 (52%) of the original targets were unchanged and

40 (48%) were revised

Overall Performance – 84 Targets

• Progress towards the original 2015 targets can be described as generally on track– 35 (41,7%) original and revised targets have

been reached– 6 (7,1%) original targets have not been

reached– 22 (26,2%) original and revised targets are on

track– 16 (19,0%) original and revised targets are not

on track– 5 (6,0%) targets have shifted or are unclear

Factors shaping progress

Progress towards these targets is shaped by a number of factors. These include:

• Inevitable changes in the process of operationalisation resulting in targets being shifted, revised and regarded as no longer valid – Many strategies and targets have been

subsequently subsumed into the IOP• Internal institutional shifts in policy, practice and

priorities• A range of positive and negative organisational

factors (see below)• External environmental shifts in policy, economy

and market conditions, amongst others

Organisational factors shaping progress

The various reflective processes and instruments mentioned above have highlighted variety of organisational factors that obstruct progress towards achieving strategic and operational goals. These may be summarised as follows:

• Lack of horizontal integration:– Inability to transcend functional silo barriers to achieve

integrated and efficient service delivery – Dependencies, especially on severely delayed HR

integration processes• Severely strained operational systems as a result of rapid

and unanticipated student growth• Organisational architecture not aligned to institutional

growth and complexity and to the new ODL business model

Organisational factors shaping progress (2)

• Inadequate human resources and capacity, especially at mid-management levels

• Unconducive organisational culture and climate, as a result of merger process and perceived tensions and mistrust

• Proliferation of change initiatives, resulting in pressure and change fatigue

• Lack of shared understanding of, and buy-in to key strategic focus areas, including ODL, Africanisation and academic identity

Next steps

• As indicated, Management will formally review the 2015 SP at its forthcoming planning Lekgotla. This will include:– A detailed review of progress, and an analysis of factors

shaping this– A review of the Plan itself

• This will result in a leaner, more focused document, clearly articulated and aligned with the IOP and comprising appropriate, measurable targets

• Simultaneously, the rollout of the BI/IR framework, as part of the Integrated Strategic Planning Framework, will provide evidence-based organisational performance management

• This will provide Management and Council with the information and analysis by which to monitor and evaluate ongoing progress towards the achievement of institutional goals